Obviously the power comes from somewhere, and one way or another there’s an environmental impact. Solar? mining & chemical manufacture. Hydro? dams. Nuclear? nuclear. Fossil fuels? well, fossil fuels.
However, it’s not all-or-nothing. You’re not going anywhere on nothing, so let’s drop that straw man. A stationary diesel generator can be significantly more energy-efficient and pollution-reduced than than a mobile ICE.
“Zero emissions” is where the power is used. Nobody sane is contending there is no emissions anywhere at all - that’s stupid.
Yes, it’s amusing to juxtapose the “clean” car with the actual source of power. Still a marked improvement over what most people are driving. Being “conservative” does not mean “hey, let’s trash the environment with our Furd Earthfukr getting 3 gallons per mile”, it’s “let’s be sensible, having learned hard-won lessons, with what we’ve got.”
(Fair disclosure: I drive a LEAF.)
“Being “conservative” does not mean “hey, let’s trash the environment ... “
I’m with you on that. I spent 20 years in my first career field of hydrocarbon energy (oil field production, refinery/pipeline engineering & construction, etc.)
I also lived for awhile in Europe, where higher fuel prices have yielded vehicles which use less fuel.
If I could design my ideal vehicle today, it would be a lot like some of the latest offerings from Volvo & Audi. Volvo is introducing their largest SUV (XC90 T8) with plug-in electric, gasoline power hybrid technology. Audi is introducing an updated Q7 SUV with plug in electric, turbo diesel technology.
In Europe diesels have earned over 50% of their passenger vehicle sales figures, for years. The better economy per gallon offset their high fuel prices.
The only way any of these options makes economic sense is if you drive many miles per year, and/or keep the vehicle for a long time.
Those brands are all in for technology. It is in their DNA so to speak. Volvo is taking 550 lbs. out of the SUV for example.
Too bad my remaining days and dollars equation means I will likely not get one, but we can dream. Meanwhile I will nurse my gorgeous Audi A6 Quattro along.
As for your Leaf. The range limit precludes me from interest in such technologies. However I recognize plug in electric only does work for commercial, whereby the distance per day is known, and overnight charging places little to no incremental electric source capacity.
“A stationary diesel generator can be significantly more energy-efficient and pollution-reduced than than a mobile ICE.”
Keeping in mind that the pollution boogeyman is CO2, I submit that a diesel generator generating power that is then stored in a battery and later used to create kinetic motion is by definition less energy efficient and more pollution producing than an on board engine that directly converts the diesel to kinetic motion.
“Still a marked improvement over what most people are driving. (Fair disclosure: I drive a LEAF.)”
Lets look at that LEAF:
They seem to get 5.4 miles per kwh....at 900 g/kwh for coal power generation, that works out to 0.37 lb co2 per mile.
That can be converted to a gas mileage equivalent. E10 is what I am forced to buy, and it makes 17.68 lb co2 per gallon. A little back calculating, and 48 mpg yields the carbon equivalent of your LEAF. There are at least a dozen cars on the US market that get 40 mpg. So, in the compact car sector, the LEAF is 20% less carbon emitting...measurable, but maybe not soapbox worthy....and here is the real question: does that 20% distinction justify the gubmint interference into the market, with its subsidy?
And that subsidy has kept automakers chasing electric technology while ignoring others. CNG cars are 20-30% less carbon emitting than gas...meaning they are exactly on par with the LEAF as far as CO2 is concerned. And, the real pollutants released by burning CNG are downright pristine, when compared to a coal power plant. And a CNG car probably even beats out a LEAF that is charged by a NG power plant, since there are no storage and transmission losses. CNG is a very promising technology...being overlook because of gubmint interference (well not really overlooked, the truck building and buying sector is unaffected by the EV subsidy since it is rare that an end consumer owns a big rig - and not surprisingly they are converting to CNG, and not electricity).
One more thing: Around 27% of our population is made up of absolute idiots. I derive that number from any number of surveys about ridiculous topics. Invariably, 27% of people polled believe 9-11 was an inside job, the moon landing was faked, etc. Trust me, these people, comprising a quarter of our population, absolutely believe that a LEAF or TESLA produces zero emissions.
This means you have to have sufficient mass and ground clearance to bust drifts without getting hung up or deflected into a ditch.
You have to have a vehicle with sufficient fuel load to keep you warm in subzero temperatures for the 12 or more hours it can take for help to arrive if you do get hung up or otherwise stuck, and it doesn't hurt to be able to carry enough fuel to go the distance to the next town (as far as 120 miles) and still have the reserves needed to keep from freezing to death.
Obviously, it isn't very efficient to have a summer vehicle and a winter vehicle, although many do, but there is nothing so inefficient as a vehicle which will not get you there nor keep you alive.
For those who live in places where snow is something you go visit, by all means drive what you will and enjoy.
My only concern is that eventually the same people who mandated toilets that won't wash poo down the pipe, and light bulbs full of mercury for your kitchen and nursery, will get the ingenious idea that vehicle choices should be mandated (more than they are) and create those mandates around the needs of those who live 20 degrees of latitude (or more) farther south.
YMMV